TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"]. Further, the third appeal being ITA 458/SRT/2026 is the appeal filed by assessee against the original order dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act. All these appeals are related to the Assessment-Year 2014-15. Since these appeals relate to same assessee, same assessment year and require consolidated adjudication, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the assessee individual filed return of AY 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,98,220/- and agricultu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "On perusal of the case, it is seen that the facts and grounds of appeals which have been adjudicated upon are different from these appearing in form No. 35 as well as the assessment order appealed against u/s 143(3) of the Act. The contents and substance of the order u/s 250 of the Act bears no correlation to the facts of the case and issue involved in the case of the assessee. However, presently there is no facility on the ITBA portal to withdraw the order u/s 250 of the act and to restore the appeal. Hence, the rectification application is rejected as reframing of a new order is neither possible nor within the scope of section 154 of the Act. The only legal remedy available is for the Hon'ble ITAT to set-aside the order t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay of 229 days in revenue's appeal), the assessee ultimately filed present appeal before ITAT, hence there is delay of 231 days in assessee's appeal. Yet there is also a delay of 876 days in assessee's ITA 458/SRT/2026. The assessee has filed a condonation-application stating that the delay had occurred for the reason that the assessee did not feel necessity of filing appeal against original order dated 16.08.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee pursued alternative remedy of filing rectification-application to CIT(A) u/s 154. However, finding no relief from CIT(A), the assessee ultimately decided to file this appeal as per advice of counsel. Hence, there is a delay. The reasons cited by respective appellants were deliberated and the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the AO has made addition u/s 56(2)(viia) in respect of land purchased by assessee. However, the assessee has filed an evidence downloaded from Google Maps on Page 10 of Paper-Book to show the aerial distance/location of land sold by him according to which the subject land was beyond the prescribed distance of 8 kms. Therefore, the land sold by assessee was not a "capital asset" as defined in section 2(14)(iii) and consequently, the provision of section 56(2)(viib) shall not apply. Ld. AR submitted that there are judicial precedents holding that the provision of section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable to the transaction of purchase of a "rural agricultural land" not falling within the definition of "capital asset". Therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the order of CIT(A) re-produced in earlier para. In these circumstances, we are unable to sustain the impugned appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) which is vitiated at its very foundation by factual errors. 9. We further notice that, during the course of hearing before us, the assessee has also placed additional material being the evidence downloaded from Google Maps, to substantiate his claim that the subject land was a "rural agricultural land" situated beyond the prescribed distance and, therefore, outside the ambit of "capital asset" as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act. However, the assessee's claim requires an in-depth examination/verification by AO and the Ld. DR has also fairly submitted that the matter may be restored to the fil....